Serious and Traumatic Injury Lawyer, Do I have a Case


There are many factors that attorneys look at when determining whether you have a good personal injury case. Some of the factors are;(1) who is at fault; (2) the nature and extent of injuries in the case; (3) insurance policies; (4) the nature and extent of property damage if any; and (5)witnesses to the accident. Other factors attorney’s look at are the nature and extent of your communications with the insurance company before you have retained an attorney.personal injury attorneysmore information on this website: @
Insurance companies look at the above factors, along with many other.

Insurance companies know one thing to be true; if a party to a personal injury case presents a claim to them, and is not represented by an attorney, “they have a sucker on their hands.” They know that in the vast majority of cases where a personal injury victim is not represented by a lawyer, that the person will not know what their legal rights are, or what they are legally entitled to collect in a personal injury case.

In these types of situations were you present a claim to insurance company without legal representation, you will most often be presented with a lowball settlement offer, or no settlement offer at all. Do not expect the insurance companies to voluntarily pay you top dollar for your case, or educate you about the benefits that you’re entitled to. It’s just not going to happen.

Most attorneys will handle your personal injury case on a contingency basis, once they have determined that you have a good chance of obtaining a settlement or a judgment in your case. A contingency fee, is a fee that is based upon a percentage of the total settlement or judgment in your case. The alternative to a contingency fee in a personal injury case, is paying a lawyer his hourly fee for representing you which can be anywhere from approximately $200 per hour to $400 per hour or more. Obviously, the contingency fee is used in the vast majority of car accident cases, so that you do not have to pay any money out of your pocket unless the attorney recovers for you.accident injury attorneys

The bottom line is this; each case is different. Our firm has seen cases where an insurance company has taken a rear ender type of car accident the court, challenging the nature and extent of injuries, and the reasonableness of medical bills.

The only way to know for sure if you have a good case, is to contact our office. We will tell you over the phone, whether you have a good case or not. You may also consult with other attorneys as well.

There are many factors involved in selecting a good personal injury attorney; Can you communicate with the attorney? Does your attorney call you back in a timely manner? Will the attorney take your case to trial if necessary? Is your attorney available after hours and on the weekends? Is your attorney competent?

You’ll find that the Law Offices of Norman Gregory Fernandez & Associates, attempts to set itself above the rest. We try to make ourselves available after hours and on the weekends whenever necessary. We make every attempt possible to call our clients back on the same day. We prepare each case as though we were going to trial. We attempt to educate our clients throughout the entire process of prosecuting the case, so that our clients are not in the dark, as to the status of their case. Above all, we are not a settlement mill. We will take your case to trial if that becomes necessary.

It is unethical for any personal injury attorney in this State of California to make any guarantees as to the outcome of your case. Furthermore, since the California State Bar does not certify personal injury as a specialty, it is unethical for any attorney in the state a California to claim that they are specialists in personal injury. Beware of any advertisements from someone claiming to be, or who is in attorney, that holds themselves out to be a specialist in personal injury, or makes any guarantees as to the outcome of your matter.

With that being said, our law firm will make one guarantee, we will fight aggressively on your behalf.

You may call us now for a free consultation on your case or you may submit your case through our online legal form for evaluation by clicking here now. You have nothing to lose except the money you may be entitled to in your case!

If you want to find out more about how we handle cases and the process check out the below links.

For a free telephone consultation call us now or visit this website @

Read More

Mandated Paid Safe Days

Protect employeesThere are many unanticipated, unfair reasons why employees miss work and suffer lost pay, lost opportunities, and even disciplinary action. There are an equal number of emotionally compelling reasons to protect employees in these instances. But does that mean employers should be required to provide protection?

In the cases of serious health conditions for immediate family members, employee disabilities, and society’s military needs, for example, the question has been answered in the affirmative. We have national laws (and in many instances state laws) to address these situations. But what about mandated paid leave for something perhaps more difficult to determine with particularity: instances of domestic violence?

The Seattle City Council has passed a new ordinance requiring among other things that businesses operating within the City and that have 5 or more employees provide paid “safe days” to employees in the City who are victims of domestic violence. The ordinance goes into effect in September 2012.

The amount of paid leave is set on a scale depending on an employer’s size. Smaller employers with 5 to 249 employees are required to grant 56 hours of paid leave. Employers with 250 or more employees must provide 72 hours of paid leave. An employer’s employees are counted for purposes of determining eligibility whether or not the employees work within the City.

An employer with leave policies that provide at least the requisite levels of paid leave generally will satisfy the ordinance if the employer permits use of the leave for instances of domestic violence.

Other urban municipalities are expected to follow Seattle’s lead. But as goes the West Coast, so goes the rest of the nation? Doubtful.

Read More

McKinney Rule for Removal To Federal Court Rejected by Fourth Circuit

accident law

The Fourth Circuit has now joined the Sixth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits in adopting a last served defendant rule to govern the timing of filing a petition for removal from state court to federal court in cases involving multiple defendants. The case is Barbour v. International Union, 1:08-cv-01076-AMD, decided on February 4, 2010.

The statutory authority for removal to federal court is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) which states:

“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.”

The rule does not specifically address a situation where multiple defendants are named and, as almost always occurs, are served on different days. The Fourth Circuit, in the case of McKinney v. Bd. of Tr. of Mayland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924 (4th Cir. 1992) addressed the situation in a footnote which has become known as the McKinney rule. That footnote read:

” [W]here B is served more than 30 days after A is served, two timing issues can arise, and the law is settled as to each. First, if A petitions for removal within 30 days, the case may be removed, and B can either join in the petition or move for remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1448. Second, if A does not petition for removal within 30 days, the case may not be removed.”

Some have read the foregoing language as requiring the first served defendant to have filed a petition for removal within thirty days of being served otherwise removal by all later served defendants is barred. While many district courts in the Fourth Circuit contended that the McKinney rule was dicta and not controlling, it has been a source of confusion and uncertainty for practitioners.

The Court’s opinion, written by Judge Agee, discusses the inequity visited upon the later served defendants due to the application of the McKinney rule.

“[N]either § 1446(a) nor § 1446(b) contemplates a scenario in which defendants are served as much as thirty days apart, or in which an unsophisticated defendant is served first and a more sophisticated defendant is served later. In these instances, the second-served defendant should be able to timely remove and persuade the first-served defendant to join the removal. Otherwise, the first-served defendant abridges the second-served defendant’s procedural right to a federal forum. If the first-served defendant makes a conscious choice not to remove, the second-served defendant has to accept that choice. But the second-served defendant should have a reasonable opportunity to consult with the first served defendant regarding possible removal. Consultation is practically impossible if service on the second defendant occurs near the end of or after the first defendant’s thirty-day removal period has expired.”

Fourth Circuit

“[T]he McKinney rule only requires every defendant to act if every preceding defendant acted; if the first-served defendant was dilatory, the remaining defendants cannot act at all.”

The Barbour Court held in conclusion:

“[W]e believe the so-called “McKinney rule” is based on non-binding dicta and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Murphy Brothers counsels a different result. We therefore join the Sixth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the last-served defendant rule and hold that in cases involving multiple defendants, each defendant, once served with formal process, has thirty days to file a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) in which earlier-served defendants may join regardless of whether they have previously filed a notice of removal.”

It appears that practitioners in the Fourth Circuit now have clearer guidance on the timing for removal of a state court action to federal court.

Read More